Internet Governance Forum Thursday 2 November 2006 
 
 Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the
 The Inaugural Meeting of the IGF, in Athens. Although it is
 largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to
 inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to
 understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an
 authoritative record.
 

 
 - Summing Up  - 



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Good morning. Let's start the last day of our forum. This
 first part, from 9:00 to 10:00, is essentially for reporting on yesterday. And
 it's after 10:00 that we will start on the overall summing up and the way
 forward. That 10:00 to 1:00 session, we will present just a starting point for
 the discussion. Markus Kummer will give some overall review of the conference.
 And then it'll be an open mike. We look forward to getting your feedback and
 also any assessments that you have, plus your suggestions that you have on the
 way forward and so on. So the overall assessment of the forum will be from
 10:00 to 1:00. This 9:00 to 10:00 session is essentially for people reporting
 on what happened yesterday. And I'm going to begin by asking Markus Kummer to
 give us his summary of the proceedings of the two main sessions.

 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:  Thank you, chairman. I'll take it in reverse order, start
 with the access and then the openness, as we have the moderator of the
 diversity panel with us. Unfortunately, the moderator of the access session
 could not be with us this morning. As we will have an overall summing up at the
 10:00 session, I will be rather short at this stage. On access, we had an
 interesting debate that brought into focus the universal acceptance that
 increasing access remains one of the great challenges facing the ICT community.
 The nature of digital divide was seen as being multifaceted and the focal point
 for public policy responses. A wide range of policy initiatives were discussed,
 but the strong theme was that the introduction of competition and removal of
 blocks to competition were of fundamental importance. It was recognized that
 Africa faced particularly complex problems with regard to access to ICT
 resources. It was also stressed by many speakers that the issue of access was
 not solved by a specific and narrow focus on telecommunications sector reform.
 However, it was recognized that telecommunications sector reform was a
 necessary condition to establish the appropriate framework for increasing
 access. Key issues highlighted in the debate over telecommunications sector
 reform included the independence and transparency, the removal of monopolies
 and the licensing of new players, competition as a key issue, and barriers to
 competition that need to be removed, the need to establish interconnection
 regimes that reinforce the competitive market, and the need to develop
 innovative policy measures such as universal access regimes to harness
 market-based solution to structural issues. The comment was made that it was
 important not to simply import regulatory frameworks from OECD countries, but
 to focus on frameworks that were tailored to local conditions. It was stressed
 the need in many countries is not local loop unbundling, but the building of
 local loops and ensuring adequate power supplies. The issue of interoperability
 and adaptability was also debated. It was recognized that the plug and play
 facilitate creating access. Likewise, it was widely recognized that open
 standards are critical to underpinning greater access for all communities. It
 was stressed that open standards are, for example, critical for those with
 disabilities, to reformat material into more accessible format. The role of
 enhanced capacity-building was discussed extensively in the debate. The issues
 were not just focused on the needs of policymakers, but enhancing the level of
 ICT skills within a country. There was broad agreement that the most
 appropriate level to address issues of access was the national level. It was
 suggested that key stakeholders and the main locus for policy development and
 implementation was at the national level. The debate focused on the role of
 governments as the key stakeholder in ensuring enabling environment for greater
 access. There was some discussion on the role of new emerging wireless
 technologies in providing increased access. It was widely accompanied that
 wireless technologies could change the access market landscape. But for this
 change in the landscape to become a reality, some of the appropriate spectrum
 regulatory and wireless technology standards issues need to be addressed. The
 speakers also emphasized the issue of affordability from two perspectives:  End
 user and a carrier's perspective. Many speakers commented that for the end
 user, the affordability of access devices is decisive in using the service.
 Many contributors commented on the discrepancy in access charges. The relative
 prices for connectivity were noted, for example, the prices on the London-New
 York route, the most intensively competitive and largest market for
 international connectivity in the world. Several speakers gave indicative
 examples, such as the price of north-south traffic in the Americas that is 60
 times more expensive than London-New York. And last, but not least, the
 significance of the IGF as an international initiative to put on the table to
 multistakeholder debates surrounding issues of access and the digital divide
 was recognized. The ability of the IGF to exchange best practices in promotion
 of access between various stakeholders will help to address the issues of
 inequalities of access. The session was moderated by Ulysse Gosset from T.V.
 France 24. Diversity, moderated by Mr. Yoshinori Imai from the Japanese
 broadcasting corporation, sitting on the podium with us. It focused, in
 essence, on two broad range of issues. One, local content, and the other one
 the Internationalized Domain Name system. One of the panelists at the outset
 said the event was not about the digital divide, but, rather, the linguistic
 divide. The panelists' views on diversity in the Internet varied, but there was
 strong agreement that multilingualism is a driving requirement for diversity in
 the Internet. One participant said, like biodiversity is to nature, diversity
 on the Internet must reflect and does reflect the whole spectrum of human
 endeavor, both past and future. There was also a recognition that diversity
 extended beyond linguistic diversity, to cover populations challenged by lack
 of literacy in the domination language or by disability. Audiovisual
 communication was one of the other forms of communication mentioned in this
 context. There was also a discussion of media for people with visual and other
 disabilities. Another theme that was mentioned involved use of the Internet to
 relieve and some to eradicate illiteracy. The meeting guided the participants
 through a very complex set of distinctions in subjects covered by diversity. It
 was generally recognized that the WSIS outcome had put the issue of
 multilingualism on the agenda of international cooperation. There was a right
 to multilingual Internet that preserved and enabled a diversity of cultures,
 including indigenous cultures. The meeting looked at -- I will cut that out for
 brevity's sake. Participants also raised the issue of software, pointing out
 that market forces were sometimes not strong enough to provide countries with
 software in languages they required. During the discussion on Internationalized
 Domain Names, it was generally felt that internationalizing these domain names
 without endangering the stability and the security of the Internet remained one
 of the biggest challenges. Part of the discussion related to the technical
 details of IDN, the discussion included an explanation of Unicode character
 sets and how language communities need to be involved in making decisions about
 the code points. The session also looked at the work being done in the
 technical bodies on improving IDN on testing IDN in the root zone file. There
 was a general understanding that the support of IDN involved more than the DNS.
 It was noted as a positive development that all browsers now supported
 Internationalized Domain Names. Participants noted that users often felt
 underrepresented when developing new scripts and they called for more
 multistakeholder cooperation as a way to work with the engineers. The message
 conveyed at the session was that the users would like to work closer with the
 technical community. There was also a brief discussion on possible follow-up.
 One suggestion was to establish multistakeholder cooperation between the
 various institutions dealing with multilingual Internet, such as UNESCO, ITU,
 and ICANN, and many others, to take up the issues and come up with solutions.
 Another suggestion related to support of multilingual content that is not
 commercially viable. Many techniques were suggested and may be explored in
 initiatives emerging from the Athens meeting. Thank you.

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  We are also fortunate that we have Mr. Imai, who moderated
 the session on diversity. And I was going to ask Mr. Imai to give his personal
 impressions of the session and what he thought transpired.

 >>YOSHINORI IMAI:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is, of course, my
 personal impression. I am deeply moved by seeing how you organized the meeting,
 how you take part in the meeting, and how you are involved in -- as
 stakeholders to build Internet for further development to make our lives
 better. Being in Greece and seeing the remains that indicate how democracy was
 born and carried out, I felt that this forum is really a revival of ancient
 AGORA. It is no easy thing to run this AGORA with all stakeholders in the
 world, representing six billion people. I cannot feel but the road ahead is not
 an easy one, but I do, at the same time, feel very confident of the future.
 Your unshaken belief in building the Internet and your selfless dedication for
 development will move things ahead. As I moderated the session about diversity,
 the most impressive words mentioned about the IDN is if this is an identifier
 or identity of people and culture. This is a grave question. At the same time,
 I strongly felt our responsibility to help those five billion people who are
 threatened to be left out, abandoned from the development. Efforts involving
 all stakeholders are urgently called for. And as coming to this forum from the
 other side, a broadcaster, I strongly felt that we broadcasters are also part
 of the stakeholders. Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you very much, Mr. Imai. Thank you very much. We will
 now have time available particularly for those who want to comment on the other
 things that happened yesterday. And may I begin first with a report from --
 where's the mike? Where's the mike? Where's the mike? I'll -- can somebody
 bring a mike here, please. Just leave the mike there, because I think -- I
 would suggest everybody who is reporting on a workshop come there, because then
 you can talk to the audience rather than to the podium.

 >> I'll leave the mike here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving me the floor.
 (saying name) from the world broadcasters' union, reporting here very briefly
 on the conclusions and the recommendations from the workshop on content
 creation last morning. The main conclusions, recommendations from that group
 corresponded quite a lot with what we just heard here presented from the main
 sessions yesterday. The recommendations are, conclusions are that a free and
 balanced flow of information and content on the Internet is in the common
 interest of all people. Local content creation and dissemination cannot exist
 without freedom of expression, because these two processes are intimately
 linked. In order to enhance content creation worldwide, especially in
 developing countries, and to implement the circulation of local content through
 the Net, there are, however, obstacles and problems to be solved. Citizens,
 journalism is an important contribution to the improvement of freedom of
 expression. The recognition or the value of linguistic diversity, as mentioned
 here before, on the Internet is crucial, as it represents an essential
 prerequisite for enhancing content creation on the local level. Creation of
 local content is impossible without the identification of viable business
 motors for new media, but also for the old media in the new media world. This
 can be achieved mainly through the identification and dissemination of best
 practices and through cooperation where both social and economic values are
 taken into account. Mr. Chairman, these were the brief conclusions from that
 session.

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you very much. Would you like to come, senator.

 >>PASCHAL MOONEY:  Thank you, chairman Desai. Senator Paschal Mooney from the
 parliamentary assembly from the Council of Europe. Reporting on the Council of
 Europe workshop on human rights and the Internet, how anonymous can and should
 we be. And I want to thank the distinguished panel and, indeed, the overflowing
 attendance at the workshop yesterday, which was extremely gratifying. The
 Council of Europe raised issues -- the workshop raised issues relating to
 anonymity and freedom of expression issues. Our panel discussed the challenge
 of balancing freedom of expression and anonymity rights with human rights
 models as espoused by the 46 member states of the Council of Europe and the
 U.N. Charter of Universal Rights. It emerged in the discussions that there is a
 gap in knowledge between (inaudible) human rights activists and ICT
 policymakers that needs to be addressed. Concerns about the automatic retention
 of data under the guise of fighting the international war on terrorism,
 automatic filtering of Web sites in some states without the referral to the
 rule of law, the lack of judicial oversight, and lack of transparency were also
 presented and discussed. Challenges to civilized society in protecting human
 rights models need to provide technology to exercise greater control over our
 identity. Evil needs to be addressed, how to restrict it and when, as one
 comment was made. As the Internet industry increasingly recognizes the need to
 look at issues surrounding hate speech, incitement of violence, and
 pornographic imagery directed at children, institutions such as the Council of
 Europe could be the bridge to advise and educate industry and users on human
 rights models as practiced in most of the states of the world. Also, the
 question was raised, is it necessary to remind the new generation of Internet
 users, the young, of the horrors of World War II, which acted as a catalyst for
 the current international human rights models, the Universal Declaration of
 Human Rights, the creation of the Council of Europe itself in 1948, three years
 after the war, and, subsequently, the European Union. The growth of social
 networks, such as myspace and YouTube, has thrown up the question of whether
 anonymity is as important to this young generation of users as those who came
 before. The rise of the Paris Hilton syndrome, when one of the benchmarks for
 success is how much attention you get, regardless of for what, now seems to be
 guiding -- the guiding principles of many who access these social networks. The
 Andy Warhol comment of 30 years ago was never more relevant, of people being
 given their 15 minutes of fame. There was a healthy exchange of views and
 questions, including issues applying Council of Europe human rights models in
 developing countries. Obviously, the issues of child pornography and anonymity.
 And once again I am grateful to all those who both presented and participated
 in our workshop. Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you very much. I have Markus -- can I just have a
 quick show of hands on how many people -- yes, Vittorio, Markus, one, two,
 three, four. We have time. Markus, would you like to come?

 >>MILTON MUELLER:  Milton.

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  I've always called him Markus, so it doesn't matter. I've
 always called him Markus. It doesn't matter.

 >>MILTON MUELLER:  Does that mean I'm the secretariat? Okay. This is a report
 on the workshop on new technical and policy challenges in DNS root zone
 management. The discussion and panelists and the audience vigorously aired
 conflicting views on the political, economic, and technical issues raised by
 management of the DNS root zone file. The panelists and the audience all seemed
 to agree that this topic was the elephant in the room and that it was time to
 discuss it openly. Some people believe that we shrank the elephant; others
 believe that we multiplied it. On the issue of universal control by the U.S.
 government, some felt that the situation was tolerable as long as the
 arrangements are stable and the root server operators have one clear,
 authoritative source for the root zone file. Also mentioned the risk of losing
 coordination in a move to new arrangements, stressing the need for caution.
 Those willing to tolerate the status quo did, however, acknowledge the
 possibility of an arbitrary unilateral action that could strain or break down
 global coordination. The discussion explored the potential benefits and dangers
 of a move to multilateral or internationalized root zone file management. One
 panelist offered a detailed proposal to internationalize root oversight and
 argued that it would remove a huge distraction from the ICANN regime and
 improve stability. Others complained that such a change would bring destructive
 governmental conflict into a domain that should be governed by commercial and
 technical criteria. Another panelist argued that whatever new arrangements are
 adopted must give excluded developing countries a voice in the regime and
 achieve more legitimacy. DNSsec is a new IETF standard that would make the DNS
 secure through the use of public key cryptographic signatures. It was noted
 that this implementation of this protocol would affect root zone file
 management, because one must decide who will sign the root and who will hold
 the encryption keys, hence the idea of multiplying the elephant. It is possible
 to implement DNSsec without signing the root, but that would create islands of
 trust in specific TLDs, posing many key management and rollover problems for
 those who tried to use it. Such problems would undermine DNSsec's cost-benefit
 calculus and possibly prove fatal to efforts to gain acceptance. It was also
 noted that registrars and, to some extent, registries, lack economic incentives
 to adopt it on their own. Finally, one panelist noted great progress in ICANN's
 Country Code Supporting Organization towards automation of routine changes in
 the root zone file. Thank you.

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Martin, before you multiply the reference to remember the
 Indian saying, that when elephants start making love, it's the grass which gets
 trampled. So.... Do I have Vittorio?

 >>VITTORIO BERTOLA:  Thank you, Nitin. I'm reporting on the workshop on the
 Internet Bill of Rights, which was organized by a number of NGOs and the
 government of Italy with the cooperation of the government of Brazil. And the
 theme of the workshop was the idea of creating an Internet bill of rights,
 which would be a document that states the rights and duties of the individual
 users of the Internet. Since, I mean, this theme of rights has been
 underpinning all the discussions here in most panels and workshops, there was a
 discussion of different possible rights and duties. But what we wanted to do in
 this workshop is actually focus on process. Since there already are many
 tentative efforts to build a charter of rights for the Internet by NGOs, by
 governments, by other sources, what we think is necessary is to build every one
 at the same table. We had quite a lively discussion. The workshop was very well
 attended. There was general consensus that we need to start talking about this
 theme, so this is actually a good idea, even if it is very ambitious. There was
 also some consensus that this should build on existing charters and statements
 of rights, so we should not invent anything new, but maybe just interpret
 existing rights into the new digital age and discuss whether they need some
 adjustments. There was consensus that we need, actually, a sort of collective,
 multistakeholder effort, which led to the idea of creating the so-called
 dynamic coalition that should address this theme from now on. It was also
 recognized that this theme should be better brought after some discussion to
 the IGF at large, and maybe even constitute one of the main themes of the
 meeting in Brazil next year. And, finally, we got the commitment by the Italian
 government to organize an international meeting next spring or summer to
 address the matter. So thank you.

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  (No audio.)  Just announce yourself. If you could announce
 yourself.

 >> I'm Claudio Munez from UNESCO. And this is a summary on the workshop towards
 a multilingual global Internet, avoiding the risk of fragmentation. The
 workshop provided a framework for dialogue on the multiple aspects linked to
 development of a multilingual cyberspace and on solutions for avoiding the
 fragmentation of the Internet. The speakers from governments and the private
 and academic sectors participated in the discussion on how to create a truly
 multilingual Internet both from the content and the technical point of view. It
 was structured in four sessions. Opening the workshop, Elizabeth Longworth,
 from UNESCO, underlined the importance and richness of languages in both
 people's and individuals' identities.  The great success of the Internet has
 created a strong pressure for all languages to be represented.  Therefore, all
 stakeholders need to work together to avoid the isolated language islands
 developed in cyberspace. Egyptian Minister Tarek Kamel pointed out that
 language barriers are major obstacles to a truly global Internet uptake, and
 called for multilingual e-content initiatives.  For example, Arabic language
 e-content could be better reflect the contribution that the Arab culture has
 made to the global community. Vinton Cerf, ICANN chairman, highlighted the
 technical challenge underlying the development of a multilingual Internet and
 IDN.  It's vital to include no Latin scripts in the domain name systems. The
 technical community has made considerable progress in integrating no Latin
 scripts in the DNS system. The issue of representation and method data --

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Can I request you to be brief?  I don't think you can read a
 full report.  We have two minutes.

 >> Two paragraphs.

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Two more sentences.

 >> There is participation of all continents, all regions of the world, and the
 general tone was to provide technical and content solutions for the
 multilingual Internet and avoid the risk of fragmentation. And as a possible
 follow-up, and I will finish, the speakers concluded by keeping in mind the
 importance of having an interoperable, secure and stable Internet, continued
 dialogue, awareness raising, as well as IDN sets are the best way to ensure
 that Internet fragmentation risk is avoided.  And that IDN are efficiently
 implemented to meet the needs of an increasing number of stakeholders. Among
 the proposed scenarios, Mr. (saying name) suggested the creation of
 international work group on multilingual in cyberspace. The report will be
 available for distribution.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  I had the gentleman there. Can I request people to focus on
 what came out of the seminar, rather than reporting what people said. It's more
 valuable for the group to get the sense of the overall outcome of the seminar,
 rather than a recitation of what different people said.

 >> Thanks, Mr. Chairman.  Axel (saying name) from UNESCO reporting on the
 workshop on openness in cyberspace, the challenges of freedom of expression
 that was organized yesterday with five panelists from human rights and freedom
 of expression organizations. The Information Society, not to mention knowledge
 societies, cannot exist without unhindered access to information in all forms
 in all the media.  This was one of the main messages of the workshop.  However,
 free speech on the Internet has been increasingly restricted over the recent
 years, jeopardizing the provisions of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration
 of Human Rights. Participants concluded that laws and rules that are applied
 off-line must also be applied online.  There should be no new standards just
 because new tools emerge and the complexity of the market and the challenges
 linked to competition between public and private content is increasing. Free
 and independent media participants should be recognized as key to eradicate
 poverty.  More specifically, people said that international governance
 mechanisms such as the European instruments is frameworks for action at the
 (inaudible) could be considered and examined as being applicable also on the
 international level. In looking at the issues of privacy and personal data
 protections, cyberspace from a nation perspective, participants observed that
 the legal concept of privacy that is closely linked to freedom of expression,
 both online and off-line, is unsufficiently well developed, particularly since
 September 2001. They said that there's an urgent need in the region to
 establish a balance between the right of Internet users for privacy and the
 right of governments for sovereignty and to establish a right to an anonymous
 cyber expression. In conclusion, participants said that the continued dialogue
 and awareness raising initiatives are the best way to improve the understanding
 of the complexity and variety of the issues of openness in cyberspace, bearing
 in mind that the Internet does not exist in a vacuum and that the international
 standard for freedom of expression must be respected and applied.

 >> Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, this is a brief report from the workshop
 of global culture for cyber security. The workshop was organized by Internet
 society of China, and the task force from the Chinese association for science
 and technology. We have ten panelist in the workshop, and the workshop has been
 divided into two sessions. The most special or distinguished feature for this
 workshop is that a proposal for a world norm of Internet based on the global
 culture and human ethics. While the discussion and the direction has such a
 feature, the motivation is that international Internet Governance may be a very
 complicated project, time consuming and may last a long time.  But people
 realize that if we seek the common point instead of a difference among all the
 related parties, it may be easier to reach some common understanding. And the
 world norm on the Internet is something we can reach an agreement with not so
 long time. So the first session focused on the question of why do we need a
 world norm on Internet. This is a very good discussion about why.  And the
 second session focused on what kind of world norm on Internet we need. As a
 result, the workshop has a proposed draft framework on the world norm on
 Internet.  It includes five points:  Openness, security, diversity, access, and
 collaboration among all parties. And the discussion would like to suggest
 strongly the world norm on Internet be include as one of the topics in the
 future meeting of IGF.  We may produce the version one -- we have produced a
 version one of the norm at this time.  But we may improve it as version two in
 the year of 2007, version three on the year of 2008, or finally we May reach
 agreement on the world norm on Internet in the year of 2009. That may become
 widely acceptable and supported document for the self-organizing,
 self-discipline, behavior of all the party related to the Internet. That will
 be the result of the governance of the Internet.  Thank you.

 >>RAJNESH SINGH:  Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Rajnesh Singh from the
 Pacific Island sector of the Internet society.  I am here to speak very briefly
 on what we discussed on ICT to achieve MDGs and in particular issues facing
 small island in developing economies. Now, our workshop was nine tended to
 highlight real issues facing small island states and developing economies, and
 what we hoped we would do is promote a bit of awareness and understanding of
 real world issues that we face. We hope through that that we fuel some
 discussion amongst stakeholders and that these stakeholders will then interact
 with us to work out what we need to do. Dr. Cerf was one of our panelists at
 the workshop and he said to understand the issues facing small island states
 you have to physically visit the islands. Having a philosophical approach is
 fine, but unless and until you see what actually goes on in the islands, then
 only will you be able to appreciate what challenges we face. Just to add to
 that, I would also like to highlight the effects of global warming.  If our
 islands do not exist, then all that we are doing here is of no consequence to
 us. And at the same time I would suggest that apart from island states, there
 are also some communities, perhaps in mountainous regions, that face similar
 issues to us, and we would like the IGF to consider for future meetings whether
 they could consider a specific focus on what needs to be done for these remote
 communities, be it in the islands, up in the mountains or whatsoever. Thank you
 very much, sir.

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.  Are there other people who would like to take
 the floor at this point?  I'm sorry, because of the glare, I can't see, so....
 No?  Are there other comments?  Not on workshops.  Any other comments.  Yes,
 please.

 >> Good morning.  The IGF will catch up with the key elements of its mandate
 should opt for a balanced approach toward addressing all issues of concern. 
 During its first five years life span, IGF should seek to achieve that balance.
  IGF should avoid pushing back exchanges on particular issues of priority to
 its last moments to meet that and to help all stakeholders, to get prepared in
 advance for reflecting on substantive items on the IGF agenda, we propose that
 the first IGF to devise a pre-established multi-year program of work which pace
 more attention to different culture regularity and different approaches.  Maybe
 you need such a program of work that I suppose is already on the fore to answer
 the question of what should be their substantive priorities of the IGF for the
 next meeting.  Consider for the session on conclusion and way forward. Thank
 you very much.

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you very much. Maybe we can pick up some of these
 themes in the session from 10:00 to 1:00 when we are looking at the way
 forward. And certainly I would very much welcome ideas from you on what are the
 themes that should be picked up in Rio. And that will be very helpful, so that
 when this work starts next year, the views could be -- would be known and
 available. Are there any others who wish to take the floor?  I see a hand
 there, yes.

 >> Mr. Chairman, can you hear me?

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Yeah, I can hear you.

 >> Mr. Chairman, concerning the way forward for Rio, it was --

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Can I make a suggestion, please.  Can we wait for the way
 forward so that we have all the comments together?  We are going to have three
 hours on this.  And it would be helpful if that -- the debate takes place
 together. This is simply a review of yesterday.  And we are actually just going
 to break for five minutes for what we politely call stretching our legs, and
 then come back at 10:00 and essentially that is the session where we sum up
 this whole meeting and then start looking ahead. But I am right now just
 seeking anybody who wishes to say something, what happened yesterday. Yes.

 >>NORBERT BOLLOW:  This is Norbert Bollow of Swiss Internet group reporting
 very briefly from the workshop on access for all. We realized and reiterated
 the importance of making the World Wide Web accessible to people with people
 with disabilities, for elderly people, and realized just how many of them there
 are, and how important, how important it is not to overlook this critical
 aspect of the Digital Divide concerning which, in fact, all nations of the
 earth are developing countries. Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Any further comments, remarks?  Or can I -- Okay. So this
 morning's session is over.  We will reassemble in about ten minutes in this
 room.  And the purpose of that session from 10:00 to 1:00 is partly to hear a
 report from Markus Kummer on an overall picture of the conference, including
 some hopefully logistical details, how many people came, et cetera. But the
 main focus, I suspect, of that session will be review of how -- what we did in
 the session, what worked, what did not work, what is it that we would like to
 see different, and most important of all, what are the themes that we want to
 pick up. Particularly, let's focus now on let's year.  But if people have a
 broader concept, like as was suggested, of what could be our longer program of
 work or five years, that would also be most welcome, if people can give an
 idea, saying this is how we should place in sequence ourselves.  If there are
 some ideas on that, most welcome. But most particularly, on any ideas that you
 have on how -- on the next session. So let's go and stretch our legs and come
 back in about ten minutes. Thank you.

 __________________________________________________________________